If you're going to start with just a single lens then it depends on your photographic style. For me there would be only 1 choice really:

17-85mm.

Sure it's EF-S, but it'll last you at least as long as your camera body, and quite likely for your next body too and it's not VERY expensive.

For a main zoom the 24-70 isn't really wide enough on its own on the 1.6crop - I think you'd soon want a wider angle, similarly the 17-40 just isn't long enough on its own you'll be champing to get your hands on something longer. Your needs may vary of course.

Regarding quality: the MTF charts show that the Canon engineers really do gain a lot from only having to cover the smaller sensor. Compare it to the 17-40L's chart and you'll see what I mean; I was shocked to see how much better the 17-85 was, I expected the L to blow it out of the water in terms of sharpness.

Of course the 17-40L is a better long-term "system" lens, covers full-frame, suffers less CA, suffers less vignetting, has better build quality, etc. But the 17-85mm is a great match for the 20D and will keep you going until you decide what your later needs are.

You should be able to get a nice range of primes that could well suit your needs while being cheaper and maybe better than the zoom alternatives.

A 20/35/50/100 macro/200 combo, especially 2nd hand and if you're not scared of maybe trying for the sigma or tamron 90mm macro's, and going for the 50mm 1.8 instead of the 1.4 (both are easily as good as L zoom quality), then you should be able to get a wide ranging package for $1000-ish.

Otherwise, a 70-200 f4L with a 17-40L combined will cost about $1000

or a 70-200 f4L with a 20/35/50 (new) for about $1000.

Methinks that your opinions on focal lengths are not really valid, especially as you've never used them. Your opinions on the quality of them, well, pro photographers need one thing, you don't necessarily need the same thing and you've no experience in photoraphy to tell you either way. A prime will outclass almost any zoom, even L glass, if only for flare resistance. Saying that a 50mm FOV (35mm lens) would not be of any use to you, as a beginner, should make almost every photographer on this site groan, most of us learnt photography with a 50mm lens! Ditto the remark about f2 not being fast enough, bloody ####, how many Med format lenses are even f2.8 and anyway why do you need a faster wide angle lens, how much available light people photograph do you intend doing? you don't need ultra fast lenses for landscapes.

I'm not trying to patronise you mate, I'm really not, but until you know what each focal length is for, what you need fast lenses for, and have some experience, I wouldn't make judgements on lenses, FOV, and focal lengths so glibly.

Consider the 28-135 IS. I just started with a new 20D this week and got this lens. It gives a good range and even has decent macro ability. The IS, as many others have also stated, really works - I played today doing full telephoto at 1/16 sec with IS on & off. With IS on, the sharpness appeared to be just as good as at 1/125 (just eye-balling the LCD). With IS off - you can imagine the impressionistic effect.

It all depends, really, on how valuable a wide-angle capability is to you. My choice, not yet regretted, was the f/2.8 16-35 as a first lens for my 20D, as I value a wide-angle lens greatly. It's quite a bit superior to the 17-40, according to Michael's tests. I'd then look for a reasonable f/1.4 used 50mm. You'd then have a high-quality, reasonably wide (25mm) lens up to just over what we call a 'normal' (56mm) and an extremely fast, high quality mild tele, at 80mm. Good way to start in my judgement. My philosophy is to get quality lenses. They make the photographs, not the body. And you'll keep them as you progress. Them's my two cents. Dan

hey, I'm new here so let me say "Hello!" first. I'm in the same boat in needing a first lense for a 20d, but for a completely different use. I've been shooting skateboarding over the past year with a "relic" Olympus C-720 Ultra Zoom...I've gotten some very good results with it; but I've wanted to step up to a better/quicker camera that I can also do other things with eventually. Since skateboarding is my main subject, I need to get in as close as possible to my subjects...but I need to keep things in budget. I'm looking at about $800 left after I purchase the camera body.(with all it's accessories) I'm going to be doing a lot of outdoors shooting(obviously) as well as some _very_ low light situation shooting...I'm not a big fan of using flash(due to time lag for the flash) and try to avoid it if possible. I've looked at both Sigma and Tamron lenses; any feedback on how those interface with the 20d? Thanks very much for your time, and I really appreciate any thoughts/opinions/feedback you could throw my way. Thanks!! Chris Olden

My first and only 20D lens so far is the 24-70 F2.8 L. This lens was a curtain-raiser for me, as I now understand all the hoopla about sharpness, lens color, and speed. The auto focus is smooth, quiet, and fast. Manual focus is always available (a very handy feature). When I get my part right, the pictures are as good as anything I've seen. The 38 to 112 focal range (equivalent) is rarely inadequate for me. Nevertheless, today I ordered the 70-200 F2.8 L IS for those times when the extra reach is necessary. This will do it for me, since I plan to cover the rare wide anlge shot with a film body and the rare super-tele with a 1.4x extender. But if I never got another piece of equipment, I could make do with the 24-70 F2.8 L. It will always be my "default" lens and will always do most of the work.

For me, I started off with the kit lens (18-55). I dont have LOTS of money yet, so my first lens was a 50mm f/1.8. Absolutely LOVED the lens, but wanted a wide angle and something to replace the 18-55 lens. After being torn between the 10-22 and the 17-40, i decided to go with the 17-40 as the replacement for my 18-55.

Out of the 6 months that I had the 18-55, I found myself wanting something wide.

So now I just use 50mm, 17-40 f/4 L

I am now on the hunt for one more lens to complete my needs. Im looking at the 70-300 DO lens... but the 70-200 f/4 L seems like a great choice also.

*sigh* times i wish I had lots of cash to buy them all :laugh:

But my advice, for 60-80 bucks, the 50mm f/1.8 is the perfect lens to start with(or 50 f/1.4 if you got a lil more dough). Once you shoot with it, you can figure out what you want out of your next lens.

Now before I get into this, I'd like to apologize for having brought up this question so many times. I know these types of questions have been discussed ad nauseam, but I feel that this one is significantly different that I need to make my own thread about it. I appreciate the help that I have already been given, and hopefully this can be one of the last repeated questions I ask. But now to the point:

Please note that this question is in regards to my first lens for the 20D. While the eventual plan is to get lenses at least ranging from at least 17-200mm with a 100mm macro, this is a few years down the road and will depend on my initial experience with my first lens.

I've been recently been asking myself some questions as regards to what would be the best way to jump into the world of digital SLR photography. While I have most of my basic plans set out, camera body for instance, the lens has been something that I have been jumping off the walls about, having no idea what is the best course of action. I would like to state my concerns about the individual lenses listed above, so that you could get a better idea of the way that I am thinking:

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM: This is obviously a top grade lens that would last for a long time. There is no point in really going into the strengths as they are obvious, so I'll just go straight to my concerns: A rather weak wide angle as with the 1.6x crop it will be around 39mm. Good to start off be definitely will be lacking down the road. Price obviously, at a good 1,000$ more than any other lens listed it costs more than the actual body. My biggest concern would be that I wouldn't have a basis of comparison with other lenses. While I am sure that the pictures will turn out fine, I will have no war of comparing them to a weaker lens to see a difference in quality and whether it is really worth the extra price. A pro that is worth mentioning is that the 10-22mm would be well suited with it as there would be no overlapping mm. Perhaps not a great thing, but for someone on a budget it's not the worse.

EF 17-40 f/4L USM: This is the lens that I was pretty confident would be a good first, but i am no longer certain. While not the best lens in it's class, it's good for the money and preforms well. My concerns with it are that first, it is somewhat in a in-between field of view. With it's 17-40mm it would overlap with any standard zoom lens by at least a good 15mm, and chances are I'd still find it lacking on the wide angle side. I'd then set out with a wide zoom and a standard zoom and this would be left in the closet. Another problem is that I still wouldn't have a real feel for what is a good vs. a bad quality lens. While it isnít the best, there still wouldn't be a real basis for comparison.

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM: I haven't really considered this lens until recently. Michael's review says that it is a fine lens and that has somewhat opened a door for this lens. While it's angle of view is impressive it does have its shortcomings as well. It is an EF-S lens, so that it wouldn't work with any non 1.6x crop body. While canon says that these will stay in favour for at least a while, I am not so optimistic. In the end this lens would have to go, but that may not be such a bad thing. At a reasonable cost of around 1k$ it may be a good learners lens to learn to see and to experience first hand dSLRs. A somewhat lower picture quality is also a drawback.

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM: Also haven't considered any of the following lenses very much, this one included. It's pros are that it is fast, inexpensive compared to the others, and that no matter what it would always have a place in my arsenal. But the cons are there too: At an effective angle of view of 80mm, it is very much so lacking on the wide angle side of things, and doesn't have any extreme telephoto capabilities to boot. However it is a good sharp lens that would definetly stay with me for quite some time. Also, being a prime lens, it has its various advantages and disadvantages as well.

EF 35mm f/2.0; While taking off some of the wide angle problems of the previous 50mm lens, this one losses some pros as well. It's not as fast, it's not as sharp and after the learning days, it may no longer have it's place. In some odd years, I simply can't see myself using this lens for any purpose. And in the end, with its effective 56mm angle of view, it's still a little wanting on the wide side of things. Pros and cons of primes apply.

EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM: A cheap substitution of the 24-70mm lens. While it is cheap and with a good variety of angle of views, it will be found wanting on the performance wide of things, and it's speed isn't all that fabulous either. It's quality however, may not be such a bad thing in the end though. It may make me appreciate what in fact is good and what is bad, and will teach me to see the differences better.

EF-S 18-55mm f/3,5-5,6 USM: The cheapest of them all; at around 100$ it's practically being given away. It is obviously not a sharp lens, or a fast one, though its angle of vision isn't all that bad. EF-S isn't a good thing, but it's not like it would be used indefinitely in the best of circumstances. An option is to get this lens with the 20D, hold on to that for a few weeks, try out a better lens, see the amazing difference in quality and smash this with a hammer. Maybe not so extreme, but it would definitely make me appreciate the quality of good lenses.

I know that this is asking a lot but I would really value some input on this topic. I've been racking my brains over this for quite some time and I can't make any real progress in my decision until I get some advice.

The lenses are in order of most to least expensive, with the first one having a huge gap over the others. The next two are almost identical, followed by the fourth at around 600$. While prices in the States are cheaper, I know that I would have to hold any potential lens in my hands before I buy it.

Thank you all very much for your help and patience. I won't forget it,

Before you decide what lens to buy, the question to ask is "What do you what to take pictures of." Landscapes? Wildlife? Portraits? Are you going to use a tripod or handhold? Do you like low light photography, or are your shots going to be primarily daylight?

If you're like most of us, you likely haven't won any recent lotteries, so money is also a factor.

My recommendation is to start off with the lens you would use the most and the best you can afford, even if it means getting only one lens versus two. If you don't shoot off a tripod, then get an IS lens. If you haven't identified any specific photography niche, such as portraits or bird photography, then stick with an all around lens, probably a zoom that can go from landscapes to people, wide angle to a normal or small telephoto. Canon has a lot to choose from. But, again, get the best lens you can afford.

Stef - I just voted for the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but I have to tell you that it would not suit me because I have found that I have very similar needs as yours and generally find it very liberating to draw without encumberance from my modest collection, almost equally:

17-40 f4L50 f1.470-200 f4L100 macro300 f4 L1.4 TC

Point being, I get a lot of use from the long lenses. You may want to consider somthing long to go with the 17-85, even right out of the gate.

I use my Canon 28-135 IS as the "standard" lens on this body. It's a great travel lens and I have produced some very sharp enlargements even when shooting as high as ISO 800.

Just a warning:There seems to be a great deal of variability in the sharpness of the Canon 28-135 IS lens between one person's lens and another. †I agree it's an extremely versatile and easy-to-travel-with lens, but, if you go that route, make sure you try several before you buy to make sure you get a decent one. †Mine wasn't. †It got progressively worse, and I finally sent it back to Canon for readjustment; even after that, it was still amazingly crappy in the corners at wider apertures. †To give you an idea, the kit lens ($300 list price) on my D70 is *far* sharper.

Lisa

I have that lens. It is loose as a goose. Point the camera downwards or upwards and the zoom changes.

The concept, however, as a walk around is on target. I'll be using it handheld in my walk around Toronto city. ISO 200 during the day, ISO 800 at night. I did that in Manhattan last year and the IS worked great.

With the 10D, I had a 24-70l + 70-200 2.8IS, plus a handful of other lenses. Bought the 17-40 f4L on the ground that I wanted to 'fill out the range', and didn't like it much, so kept it in the bag. Slowly over time, the 17-40 became more useful and lived on the camera all the time, and I realised it is a wonderful lense!

I bought the 20D specifically for the 17-85, as I wanted a walkbout for a trip to Italy, and with the L lenses, I'd spend all my time changing lenses ...

So far the 17-85 look great on the 20D (although I would still use the 17-40 in preference when possible)

For myself I chose the 17-85 as the first lens for this camera. I was switching from Nikon film to Canon digital.

I would have preferred the 24-70 L also but for a basic walkaround lens the 17mm was better for me and the budget was $2000 so my choice was made. I added the 24mm Sigma 1.8 Macro for a faster lens. I would have preferred a little wider but I was hoping to use the Macro feature of this lens. After taking my kit to Asia I found that the 17-85 was used almost exclusively and the 24mm I only used for flowers. I borrowed a friends 70-100 IS and that was rarely used. SLR's strenghs are in the many lens choices but that also means it is hard to have just one lens.

In my thinking a 50mm is not a good option for a primary lens with a 1.6x crop factor, especially if landscapes are your interest. For portraits it is a good lens. For those of you not dealing with the small sensor remember to multiply. A 50 is an 80 so although many great photographers learned on 50mm, most of us would agree that if you only had one lens an 80 would not be your first choice for general use. Remember landscapes, street scenes .... I think if you only have one lens it is better to err on the wide side and crop. (I know the purists are moaning but this is the adobe age)

I bought the 20D specifically for the 17-85, as I wanted a walkbout for a trip to Italy, and with the L lenses, I'd spend all my time changing lenses ...

So far the 17-85 look great on the 20D (although I would still use the 17-40 in preference when possible)

So is the 17-40 noticeably sharper, or just faster?

I've got a 17-40 and a 28-105 that get carted around all the time. I've been thinking of getting a 17-85 and only having to carry one lens instead of two, but am worried about sharpness.

I've noticed that all of my favorite shots have been taken with my sharpest lenses - 50mm f1.8 and 17-40 F4L. The 28-105 has some good ones, but the very best ones all came from those very sharpest lenses and I'd hate to buy another lens and decide not to carry it for fear of fuzzy pictures.